Is the Republican Party becoming the anti-science and global warming denier party?

They've already had denier tendencies. Most of them just represent their rabid denier constituents. Even if they believe the science, they take heat from the nuts in their party. Some of them respect the science, however.

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski:

"Convinced that heat-trapping pollutants contribute to climate change, Murkowski generally backs federal limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Last year, she joined Bingaman in sponsoring legislation that would allow oil refineries, manufacturers and other industrial operations to comply with new emissions limits by buying and selling emission permits."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energ...

But as this article hints, she faces scrutiny from the zealots in her party.

John Warner, former Republican Senator, spoke out in favor of climate legislation recently. Moderate Republicans Collins and Snowe also accept the science.

The Republican party certainly covets the religious right as part of their conservative base. The moderate John McCain felt the need to balance the ticket with the inclusion of Sarah Palin, a clear attempt to pull in the right wing conservative voting block the party is so dependent upon.

To a fairly high degree of certainty, if you speak with someone who fervently denies global warming science, you are more likely than not speaking with a conservative Republican. I recall a poll taken about a year ago that demonstrated this demographic reality, and it was quite pronounced.

The lay person's stance concerning the validity of global warming is strongly influenced by their predominant world view, much more than an understanding of an esoteric science. So, belief versus non-belief aligns strongly with political bias.

Well those particular Republicans are morons, clearly.

As for the rest, what disappoints me about skeptics is that few comments are made to remind people that even aside from global warming, we are facing many environmental problems specifically related to agriculture and the expectation that we will be able to feed growing populations on all continents indefinitely into the future. Any number of very minor shifts in the environment can have profound impacts on the way we feed people in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas.

You wanna deny global warming, go ahead, we can argue about it until the cows come home. But beyond global warming, we are still far from impervious to the environment's variability, especially with a still-booming and increasingly interdependent population.

I'm not sure all republicans are that unreasonable. I think these two are out of step with their party platform.

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm

While some parts clearly indicate they will obstruct anything they perceived as reducing US economic viability, the platform says they actually want to consider the science. Unless that is code for "do more research for 20 more years before even considering action," I think that is good. The science is sound and can withstand honest scrutiny. I have no doubt of this. Let's hope they go back to a big tent soon.

The quicker the extreme elements of the party get educated the better for all of us. Then the parties can have a knock-down drag out fight about what actions are needed to to protect the welfare of our citizens and preserve economic growth. This is what they need to be arguing about and working out the particulars on. Not "does AGW (climate change, or whatever you want to call it ) exists and are people the cause? " The answer was in years ago on that and only the unthinking party extremist drones are clueless.

I for one never understood the linkage between the social conservatives on the one hand, and economic libertarians and strict-construction constitutionalists on the other.

There is their general agreement on foreign policy issues, but centrist Democrats agree with them on foreign policy issues as well.

Even on issues where you get to the same answer for different reasons ("God said there'd be no flood" versus "when you're limiting individual liberty there's a high standard of proof that you haven't met yet"), the linkage is fleeting - - - Dana you may yet prove your case. That weather we had last week - - - that had gone away for quite some time. If that comes back on a regular basis - - you know, beach weather in April, polo shirt and jeans weather in March, Iraq weather in Boston in July, beach weather in October, etc... - - then I'll believe you. These guys won't.

This is why a fiscal conservative like me would NEVER vote with people with such a low level of moral values.

BTW: To my fellow Christians: God said he would not flood the Earth again... which does not mean that he will protect us from self inflicted floods... where does it say in the Bible that God is a universal natural disaster policy insurance???

The main point is probably that the Republicans hate the children and do not care in which world they will leave.

An unsustainable society IS taxation of the future generation without representation... and a "taxation without representation" of other people sharing the same planet. If you are Christian, read again who Jesus answers is your neighbor to know how radically opposed to the value of "US first" from the republican it is.

Anyway, the Republicans are worldwide to right wing parties what the sovietic communist party used to be out of left wing parties... an extreme stuck in its delirium.

Yes. The Ditto-head party has become the meaningless little church party, and there is little evidence that it will ever be meaningful again. The churchy people managed to get control of the party and so be it. At some point a new fiscal conservative party will arise and quickly become a powerful force in American politics. This will be a party that actually believes in science, but will will believe in less government in business. This Good-Management party will create efficient free-market solutions that incorporate economic externalities such as everyone's right to a healthy world. Once the thinking fiscal conservatives are divorced from the bible-beaters, we will have new party that dominates worldwide decisions and moves the world away from socialism and back to a working free-market.

Always was that way.

Just now that they're about done with the purge of ideologically impure, the only ones left will be the cranks, nuts and zealots.

Good for them.

You know, I wrote a letter in 2000 in response to some zealots who claimed that Gores' challenge to the Florida recount was an attempt at a coup.

The gist was that I hoped Bush did win so that the small-minded, bigoted, ...unprintable... reactionary right would implode, wither and not die, but be relegated to the status of curiosity.

A curiosity that could regularly rear its ugly head and remind people why they were left behind.

I had no idea I could be so right.

It took an illegal war, spying on US citizens, torture, Katrina, *Dick* Cheney, the biggest runup in the national debt in history, a generational economic crisis, partisian lying, hiring and firing in the Justice Dept., deliberate and repeated suppresion of career government scientists by partisian hack managers and who knows what else we haven't found out about yet...for people to get the message.

I hope it was worth it.

There's a problem here. Global warming / climate change are not based on science or even good data. It's based on lies to dumb us down and keep us busy writing checks and separating cardboard from plastic, even though this material will be chucked into the incinerators or landfills anyway.

I'm very pro-science, just anti-stupidity-sheeple mentality. Al Gore and Obama think they're gods.

I'd like to expand that to say that the Republican Party is and has all along influenced the effort to derail science and advances in clean, safe, efficient energy sources. They are the SOURCE of the doubt and setbacks to curb environmental degradation.

Republicans support big business and big business doesn't want change if its already established fossil fuel industry pours billions of dollars per year out of American's pocketbooks. Meanwhile spoonfeeding us the idea that nothing is wrong with the climate or atmosphere and you should buy sporty, gas guzzling vehicles cuz they're cool.